CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal and Plant Science EducationAvian ecology and behavior

Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare

Open access
Chiew, Samantha J., Butler, Kym L., Sherwen, Sally L., Coleman, Grahame J., Fanson, Kerry V., Hemsworth, Paul H.·2019·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani9060285PMC PMC6617050
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We examined the effects of regulating the viewing proximity of visitors and the intensity of visitor behaviour on behaviours indicative of fear and stress physiology of 15 zoo-housed little penguins (Eudyptula minor). A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating: (1) the viewing proximity of visitors to enclosure, ‘normal viewing distance’ and ’increased viewing distance’ (using a physical barrier set up 2 m away from the enclosure), and (2) the intensity of visitor behaviour, ‘unregulated visitor behaviour’ and ‘regulated visitor behaviour’ (using signage and uniformed personnel). In addition, a treatment consisting of closing the enclosure to visitors was included. Penguin behaviour, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded by CCTV video recordings and direct observations, respectively. Penguin faecal glucocorticoid metabolites were also analysed as a measure of stress physiology. We found that increased viewing distance reduced (p < 0.05) all visitor behaviours except for loud vocalisations and tactile contact with penguins. However, there were no direct effects of signage and uniformed personnel on visitor behaviour (p > 0.05). As the regulation of viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, this increased the proportion of penguins huddling (p = 0.0011), vigilant (p = 0.0060) and retreating (p = 0.00013), and decreased the proportion of penguins within 1 m of the visitor viewing area (p = 0.00066), surface swimming (p = 0.00091) and preening in the water (p = 0.042). There were also limited effects of regulating visitor behaviour on penguin behaviour. No treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (p > 0.05). These results indicate that regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour. This suggests that close visitor contact can be fear-provoking for little penguins but increasing the distance between visitors and penguins can reduce fear responses of penguins by regulating both viewing proximity and visitor behaviour. However, it is unclear whether these changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Regulating visitor viewing proximity with a 2 m barrier reduced potentially threatening visitor behaviours and reduced little penguin behaviours indicative of fear, while signage and uniformed personnel did not significantly change visitor behaviour. No treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites.

Key findings

  • Increased viewing distance reduced visitor tactile contact with enclosure features by 90%, looming >0.5 m by 99.8%, tactile contact with water by 100%, and sudden movements by 99% (all p < 0.05), and was associated with a 30% reduction in visitor numbers; it did not significantly affect ambient noise, loud vocalisations, looming <0.5 m, or tactile contact with penguins.
  • Signage and uniformed personnel had no significant effect on visitor behaviour, ambient noise, or visitor number (p > 0.05); the best estimate was a ~40% reduction in tactile contact with enclosure features, but p = 0.30.
  • As viewing proximity increased from closed exhibit to increased viewing distance to normal viewing distance, penguins showed more huddling (25% to 69%, p = 0.0011), more vigilance (3% to 22%, p = 0.0060), fewer penguins within 1 m of side A (28% to 1%, p = 0.00066) and side B (p = 0.0024), and less surface swimming (39% to 9%, p = 0.00091); retreating (p = 0.00013) and preening in water (p = 0.042) were also affected.
  • Regulating visitor behaviour reduced huddling by about 20% (p = 0.0025) but had no effect on vigilance, proximity to the visitor viewing area, or swimming; no treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (p > 0.05).

Methods

  • A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design plus a closed-exhibit treatment was used with 15 zoo-housed little penguins (10 females, 5 males; 5 months to 13 years) at Melbourne Zoo in a 330 m² enclosure; treatments were imposed for 2-day periods, three replicates each, over 30 study days from February to May 2016.
  • Penguin behaviour was recorded by four CCTV cameras using instantaneous point sampling every 3 min and one-zero sampling every 30 s in three 1 h blocks per day; visitor behaviour and numbers were recorded directly using instantaneous sampling every 3 min in seven 30 min blocks, with ambient noise logged every 3 min.
  • Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites were measured from 397 faecal samples (372 used after exclusions) via a validated cortisone enzyme-immunoassay; data were analysed with ANOVA including viewing proximity, visitor behaviour regulation, and their interaction, with covariates included when significant (p < 0.05).

Limitations

  • The paper states that the lack of FGM effects may be because predictability and control over visitor contact ameliorated HPA-axis activation, or because the 2-day treatment period was insufficient to elicit measurable FGM changes; it also notes that it remains unclear whether penguin changes were due to increased separation per se and/or specific visitor behaviours impeded by distance.
  • The paper states that signage may have been limited because it did not specifically target behaviours such as looming and tactile contact with water, and that there may be a precision issue for visitor behaviour regulation results.
  • Evident from the text: FGM samples could not always be assigned to individual birds, so group-level sampling was used; behavioural observations were limited to birds visible on camera; and some visitor behaviours occurred only at normal viewing distance, requiring non-parametric tests.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani9060285

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

11 of 71 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Several studies have shown signs that have clear instructions that target a specific behaviour, justification and appeal to visitors' emotions, are more effective in moderating visitor behaviour.

    “Several studies have shown signs that have clear instructions that target a specific behaviour [60], justification [61] and appeal to visitors’ emotions [34], are more effective in moderating visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [60] Meis, J., and Kashima, Y. (2017). Signage as a tool for behavioral change: Direct and indirect routes to understanding the meaning of a sign. PLoS ONE, 12. source
    • cites [61] Marschall, 2017, Interpretation in wildlife tourism: Assessing the effectiveness of signage on visitor behaviour at a seal watching site in Iceland, J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. source
    • cites [34] Kratochvil, 1997, Reducing acoustic disturbances by aquarium visitors, Zoo Biol. source
  • Premisecitation

    Wild little penguins prefer to nest further away from visitor paths or areas of high human disturbance.

    “Wild little penguins also prefer to nest further away from visitor paths or areas of high human disturbance [39,40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [39] Klomp, 1991, Surface nesting by little penguins on Penguin Island, Western Australia, Emu source
    • cites [40] Weerheim, 2003, Population size, breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins (Eudyptula minor) on Montague Island, New South Wales, Wildl. Res. source

      The available indexed passages identify a study of little-penguin nest-site distribution, but contain no findings about distance from visitor paths or human disturbance. Searches for visitor paths, walking tracks, and disturbance returned only bibliographic material, so the nesting preference cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    A degree of both predictability of visitor contact and control over visitor contact, by hiding from and avoiding fear-provoking visitor interactions, may have been an effective adaptive response in ameliorating the activation of the HPA axis in the penguins when visitor viewing proximity and behaviour were uncontrolled (i.e., standard zoo conditions).

    “A degree of both predictability of visitor contact and control over visitor contact, by hiding from and avoiding fear-provoking visitor interactions, may have been an effective adaptive response in ameliorating the activation of the HPA axis in the penguins when visitor viewing proximity and behaviour were uncontrolled (i.e., standard zoo conditions) [58,59].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [58] Boissy, 1995, Fear and fearfulness in animals, Q. Rev. Biol. source
    • cites [59] Mobbs, 2015, The ecology of human fear: Survival optimization and the nervous system, Front. Neurosci. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Two of the four studies on zoo-housed penguins found negative effects of visitors.

    “Two of these studies found negative effects of visitors, where one study showed that African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) reduced their pond use [13], and another study found that little penguins displayed increased aggression, huddling and avoidance behaviours [14] in response to visitor presence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., and Pessani, D. (2014). Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 1–7. source
    • cites [14] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
  • Premisecitation

    There have been only four studies to date that have investigated the effects of visitor presence on zoo-housed penguins.

    “To our knowledge, there have been only four studies to date that have investigated the effects of visitor presence on zoo-housed penguins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., and Pessani, D. (2014). Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 1–7. source

      The Introduction (around lines 46–60) says very few studies have examined zoo-visitor effects on penguins and discusses three earlier studies; this paper investigates a fourth case. It does not state that these are the only four studies, so it does not establish the claim’s exact, exhaustive count. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
    • cites [15] Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • May combine two claims. 29

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Variation in penguin behaviour related to visitor contact may be due to species or individual animal differences, such as past experiences and coping style, enclosure design, or the nature of the visitor interactions.

    “Also, this variation in penguin behaviour related to visitor contact may be due to species or individual animal differences, such as past experiences and coping style, enclosure design or the nature of the visitor interactions [17].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Learmonth, 2018, The effects of zoo visitors on Quokka (Setonix brachyurus) avoidance behavior in a walk-through exhibit, Zoo Biol. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Some studies on zoo penguins have shown that the presence of visitors may be fear-provoking.

    “Some studies on zoo penguins have shown that the presence of visitors may be fear-provoking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., and Pessani, D. (2014). Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 1–7. source
    • cites [14] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Comfort behaviours such as preening are generally more likely to occur when the animal is not threatened.

    “Presumably, comfort behaviours such as preening are generally more likely to occur when the animal is not threatened [19,48,49,50].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [19] Ainley, 1974, The comfort behaviour of Adélie and other penguins, Behaviour source
    • cites [48] Mckinney, 1965, The comfort movements of Anatidae, Behaviour source
    • cites [49] Delius, 1988, Preening and associated comfort behavior in birds, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. source
    • cites [50] Zimmerman, 2011, Behaviour of domestic fowl in anticipation of positive and negative stimuli, Anim. Behav. source

      The Abstract reports that laying hens showed more comfort behaviours, including preening, while anticipating a positive event, and associates those behaviours with relaxation. This supports the proposed link, but the paper’s reported finding concerns hens anticipating conditioned events, not animals generally whenever they are not threatened. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Three of the four studies on zoo-housed penguins examined correlations between visitor numbers and penguin behaviour, and only one was under experimental conditions.

    “However, results from these four studies need to be interpreted with caution as three of the above-mentioned studies examined correlations between visitor numbers and penguin behaviour [13,15,16], and only one study was under experimental conditions [14].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., and Pessani, D. (2014). Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 1–7. source
    • cites [15] Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] Collins, 2016, The effect of the zoo setting on the behavioural diversity of captive Gentoo penguins and the implications for their educational potential, J. Zoo Aquar. Res. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some penguin species in the wild have been found to habituate to human contact, depending on previous experience and the amount of exposure to humans.

    “In contrast, some penguin species in the wild have been found to habituate to human contact, depending on previous experience and the amount of exposure to humans [10,11,12].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [10] Fowler, 1999, Behavioral and hormonal responses of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) to tourism and nest site visitation, Biol. Conserv. source
    • cites [11] Villanueva, 2012, A matter of history: Effects of tourism on physiology, behaviour and breeding parameters in Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) at two colonies in Argentina, J. Ornithol. source
    • cites [12] Yorio, 1990, The effects of human disturbance on Magellanic penguin Spheniscus magellanicus behaviour and breeding success, Bird Conserv. Int. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    African penguins reduced their pond use in response to visitor presence.

    “one study showed that African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) reduced their pond use [13]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., and Pessani, D. (2014). Pond use by captive African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in an immersive exhibit adjacent to human bathers. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci., 1–7. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The best estimate for the effect of attempted regulation of visitor behaviour is that the frequency of tactile contact with enclosure features was reduced by about 40%, although the p value was 0.30.

    “Nevertheless, the best estimate for the effect of the attempted regulation of visitor behaviour is the frequency of tactile contact with enclosure features (the third highest frequency of the recorded behaviours) which was reduced by about 40%, although the p value was 0.30 (Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Attempted regulation of visitor behaviour using signage and uniformed personnel had no effect on actual visitor behaviour, ambient noise, or the number of visitors to the exhibit (p > 0.05).

    “There was no evidence at the 5% level that the attempted regulation of visitor behavior affected actual visitor behavior, ambient noise or the number of visitors to the exhibit (Table 4).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “However, there were no direct effects of signage and uniformed personnel on visitor behaviour (p > 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Looming was the most frequently recorded visitor behaviour and was eliminated by restricting visitors from closely approaching the enclosure by erecting the barrier 2 m from the enclosure.

    “This behaviour was the most frequently recorded visitor behaviour and was eliminated by restricting visitors from closely approaching the enclosure by erecting the barrier 2 m from the enclosure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    While fewer penguins were observed huddling, allopreening and pecking, there were no effects of attempting to regulate visitor behaviour on the number of penguins observed close to the visitor viewing area, surface swimming and vigilant.

    “While fewer penguins were observed huddling, allopreening and pecking, there were no effects of attempting to regulate visitor behaviour on the number of penguins observed close to the visitor viewing area, surface swimming and vigilant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As regulation of visitor viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, more little penguins were observed huddling and vigilant, and less penguins were observed close to the visitor viewing area and surface swimming.

    “We found that as the regulation of visitor viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, more little penguins were observed huddling and vigilant, and less penguins were observed close to the visitor viewing area and surface swimming.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The proportion of penguins engaging in the behavioural events in any 30 s period was generally very small.

    “However, it should be noted that the proportion of penguins engaging in the behavioural events in any 30 s period was, in general, very small.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We found the penguins still spent most of their time swimming when visitors were not present or when visitors were further away.

    “Yet not surprisingly, we found the penguins still spent most of their time swimming when visitors were not present or when visitors were further away, suggesting it is a highly motivated behaviour and possibly an indicator of a positive welfare state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The occurrence of retreating was very low when viewing distance was increased (with unregulated visitor behavior) or when the exhibit was closed.

    “The occurrence of retreating was very low when viewing distance was increased (with unregulated visitor behavior) or when the exhibit was closed (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The frequency of tactile contact with enclosure features, loud vocalisations and physical contact with the pool were about halved when signage and uniformed personnel was used.

    “However, there may be a precision issue with our results regarding the regulation of visitor behaviour, as the frequency of tactile contact with enclosure features, loud vocalisations and physical contact with the pool were about halved when signage and uniformed personnel was used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour.

    “These results indicate that regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The main physiological stress responses to threatening stimuli are via the sympatho-adrenal medullary system and the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, resulting in the secretion of catecholamines and glucocorticoids, respectively, when activated.

    “Meanwhile, the main physiological stress responses to threatening stimuli are via the sympatho-adrenal medullary system and the hypothalamo–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, resulting in the secretion of catecholamines and glucocorticoids, respectively, when activated [24,25].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] Moberg, G.P., and Mench, J.A. (2000). Biological response to stress: Implications for animal welfare. The Biology of Animal Stress, CABI Publishing. source
    • cites [25] Becker, J.B., Breedlove, S.M., Crews, D., and McCarthy, M.M. (2002). Endocrinology of the stress-response. Behavioral Endocrinology, MIT Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Sherwen et al. [27] found no effect of signs on visitor numbers.

    “In contrast, Sherwen, Magrath, Butler, Phillips and Hemsworth [27] found no effect of signs on visitor numbers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Sherwen, 2014, A multi-enclosure study investigating the behavioural response of meerkats to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Close human proximity elicits avoidance responses in Adelie and Humboldt penguins.

    “elicit avoidance responses in Adelie [36] and Humboldt penguins [6]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [36] Wilson, 1991, People in Antarctica—how much do Adélie penguins Pygoscelis adeliae care?, Polar Biol. source
    • cites [6] Ellenberg, 2006, Physiological and reproductive consequences of human disturbance in Humboldt penguins: The need for species-specific visitor management, Biol. Conserv. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Human approach increased vigilance and agonistic behaviours in King, Gentoo and Royal penguins.

    “and increased vigilance and agonistic behaviours in King (Aptenodytes patagonicus), Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and Royal penguins (Eudyptes schlegeli) in response to human approach [7,8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] Holmes, 2006, Behaviour and breeding success of Gentoo penguins Pygoscelis papua in areas of low and high human activity, Polar Biol. source
    • cites [8] Holmes, 2007, Comparing King, Gentoo, and Royal penguin responses to pedestrian visitation, J. Wildl. Manag. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating viewing proximity and intensity of visitor behaviour.

    “A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating: (1) the viewing proximity of visitors to enclosure, ‘normal viewing distance’ and ’increased viewing distance’ (using a physical barrier set up 2 m away from the enclosure), and (2) the intensity of visitor behaviour, ‘unregulated visitor behaviour’ and ‘regulated visitor behaviour’ (using signage and uniforme”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In addition to close proximity per se, these visitor behaviours that are possible when close to the enclosure such as leaning on or over the enclosure ledge and physical contact with the water, may be fear-provoking and may be more effectively managed by using a physical barrier rather than signage.

    “Thus, in addition to close proximity per se, these visitor behaviours that are possible when close to the enclosure such as leaning on or over the enclosure ledge and physical contact with the water, may be fear-provoking and may be more effectively managed by using a physical barrier rather than signage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sherwen et al. [14] found that the presence of visitors was fear-provoking but not specifically what aspect of visitors was responsible for this effect.

    “The study by Sherwen, Magrath, Butler and Hemsworth [14] found that the presence of visitors was fear-provoking but not specifically what aspect of visitors was responsible for this effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    An average of 13 samples (range 7-20) were collected per day for the group of 10-15 birds, for an average of 91% of the penguins sampled each day.

    “An average of 13 samples (range 7–20) were collected per day for the group of 10–15 birds, for an average of 91% of the penguins sampled each day.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There is an extensive body of evidence demonstrating the importance of both predictability and control in determining the behavioural and physiological effects of aversive stimuli.

    “There is an extensive body of evidence demonstrating the importance of both predictability and control in determining the behavioural and physiological effects of aversive stimuli [55,56,57].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [55] Seligman, 1970, Chronic fear and ulcers in rats as a function of the unpredictability of safety, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. source
    • cites [56] Weiss, 1970, Somatic effects of predictable and unpredictable shock, Psychosom. Med. source
    • cites [57] Weiss, 1971, Effects of coping behavior in different warning signal conditions on stress pathology in rats, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins are the smallest species of penguins, grow to an average height of 30 cm and weigh about 1 kg.

    “Furthermore, little penguins are the smallest species of penguins, that grow to an average height of 30 cm and weigh about 1 kg [41,42,43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [41] Wallis, 2017, The little penguin ‘Eudyptula minor’ on Middle Island, Warrnambool, Victoria: An update on population size and predator management, Vic. Nat.
    • cites [42] Dann, 1991, Movements and patterns of mortality at sea of little penguins Eudyptula minor from Phillip Island, Victoria, Emu source
    • cites [43] Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The intra-assay CV was less than 15%, and inter-assay CVs were 4.2% and 9.1% for low and high controls, respectively (n = 11 plates).

    “The intra-assay CV was less than 15%. Inter-assay CVs were 4.2% and 9.1% for low and high controls, respectively (n = 11 plates).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Meteorological data, zoo visitor gate numbers, and the proportion of male penguins were used as covariates if they were significant (p < 0.05), which improved the precision of some statistical analyses.

    “Meteorological data (maximum and minimum daily temperatures), zoo visitor gate numbers and the proportion of male penguins, all measurements that are unlikely to be affected by the treatment applied, were used as covariates if they were significant (p < 0.05). This improved, sometimes substantially, the precision of some of the statistical analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The penguins' swimming when visitors were not present or further away suggests it is a highly motivated behaviour and possibly an indicator of a positive welfare state.

    “Yet not surprisingly, we found the penguins still spent most of their time swimming when visitors were not present or when visitors were further away, suggesting it is a highly motivated behaviour and possibly an indicator of a positive welfare state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Sherwen et al. (2015) anecdotally reported that penguins perform increased preening while swimming.

    “Sherwen et al. (2015) anecdotally reported that penguins perform increased preening while swimming.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sherwen et al. (2015)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Despite not being statistically significant, it could explain why there were still some effects of attempting to regulate visitor behaviour on some penguin behaviours which provides evidence that signage and uniformed personnel must have affected some relevant aspect of visitor behaviour.

    “Despite not being statistically significant, it could explain why there were still some effects of attempting to regulate visitor behaviour on some penguin behaviours which provides evidence that signage and uniformed personnel must have affected some relevant aspect of visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Physiological stress in zoo animals is commonly measured through faecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations because of its non-invasive sampling technique.

    “Physiological stress in zoo animals is commonly measured through faecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations because of its non-invasive sampling technique [26].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Shepherdson, 2004, Cross-institutional assessment of stress responses in zoo animals using longitudinal monitoring of faecal corticoids and behaviour, Anim. Welf. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Each treatment was randomly imposed for 2-day periods, with three replicates of each treatment.

    “Each treatment was randomly imposed for 2-day periods, two treatments per week with one day break in between (Mon–Tues and Thurs–Fri), with three replicates of each treatment (total of 30 study days) using a fully randomised factorial design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 2-day treatment periods are sufficient for penguin behavioural and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite responses to reflect treatment effects.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These limited effects on penguin behaviours are not surprising, since this treatment had no observed effect on reducing visitor behaviours that intuitively may be fear-provoking such as tactile contact with enclosure features, loud vocalisations, looming over the enclosure ledge, physically touching the pool's water and suddenly moving towards the enclosure.

    “These limited effects on penguin behaviours are not surprising, since this treatment had no observed effect on reducing visitor behaviours that intuitively may be fear-provoking such as tactile contact with enclosure features, loud vocalisations, looming over the enclosure ledge, physically touching the pool’s water and suddenly moving towards the enclosure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This study received ethical approval from the Zoos Victoria Animal Ethics Committee (approval number ZV15022).

    “This study received ethical approval from the Zoos Victoria Animal Ethics Committee (approval number ZV15022) and was conducted at the Melbourne Zoo penguin exhibit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study penguins may have perceived visitors as threatening when in close proximity, with increased vigilance and huddling reflecting increased alertness, and increased distance from the visitor viewing area reflecting avoidance.

    “This indicates that the study penguins may have perceived visitors as threatening when in close proximity, with the increased vigilance and huddling behaviour reflecting increased alertness, and the increased distance from the visitor viewing area reflecting avoidance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    As visitor numbers increased, Humboldt penguins spent more time swimming underwater at the underwater viewing window.

    “as visitor numbers increased, Humboldt penguins were found to spend more time swimming underwater at the underwater viewing window [15]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is not surprising that little penguins may perceive visitors as threatening, particularly when close visitor contact may be intense, unpredictable and possibly unrewarding.

    “It is therefore not surprising that little penguins may perceive visitors as threatening, particularly when close visitor contact may be intense, unpredictable and possibly unrewarding.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Aquarium-housed Gentoo penguins increased their behavioural diversity and pool use as visitor numbers increased.

    “aquarium-housed Gentoo penguins increased their behavioural diversity and pool use [16]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Collins, 2016, The effect of the zoo setting on the behavioural diversity of captive Gentoo penguins and the implications for their educational potential, J. Zoo Aquar. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other studies have found that signs can effectively regulate visitor behaviour.

    “In comparison, other studies have found that signs can effectively regulate visitor behaviour [27,34].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [27] Sherwen, 2014, A multi-enclosure study investigating the behavioural response of meerkats to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source
    • cites [34] Kratochvil, 1997, Reducing acoustic disturbances by aquarium visitors, Zoo Biol. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Regulating the viewing proximity of visitors, either by installation of a physical barrier or by closing the exhibit to visitors, strongly reduces little penguin behaviours indicative of fear and strongly increases swimming, which is likely impeded by fear.

    “This study provides evidence that regulating the viewing proximity of visitors, either by the installation of a physical barrier or by closing the exhibit to visitors, strongly reduces little penguin behaviours indicative of fear and strongly increases swimming, which is likely impeded by fear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study period may have been insufficient to elicit a measurable change in FGM.

    “Another possibility may be that the study period was insufficient to elicit a measurable change in FGM.”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · hedged
      “which may suggest that penguin behavioural responses such as avoidance may have been an effective adaptive response in ameliorating stress arising from close visitor contact, or that the treatment period was insufficient to elicit a measurable change in FGM.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The close proximity of humans to penguin landing sites has been shown to delay the landing times on beaches of Yellow-eyed penguins returning from their daily forage at sea.

    “For example, the close proximity of humans to penguin landing sites has been shown to delay the landing times on beaches of Yellow-eyed penguins returning from their daily forage at sea [35]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Wright, M. (1998). Ecotourism on Otago Peninsula: Preliminary Studies of Hoihos (Megadyptes antipodes) and Hookers Sealion (Photcartos hookerii), Department of Conservation.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    High numbers of visitors in the zoo would increase noise levels, but not direct interactive behaviours that would occur at the exhibit.

    “For example, high numbers of visitors in the zoo would increase noise levels, but not direct interactive behaviours that would occur at the exhibit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was conducted only on school working days to avoid the normal systematic variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and during school holiday periods.

    “The study was conducted from the end of February to May 2016 (Summer/Autumn) over 9 weeks, and was only conducted on school working days, to avoid the normal systematic variation in visitor numbers that occurs on weekends and during school holiday periods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sites frequently visited by tourists dramatically increased heart rate and reduced reproductive success of Humboldt penguins.

    “Also, sites frequently visited by tourists dramatically increased heart rate and reduced reproductive success of Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) [6]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Ellenberg, 2006, Physiological and reproductive consequences of human disturbance in Humboldt penguins: The need for species-specific visitor management, Biol. Conserv. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is unclear whether the changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.

    “However, it is unclear whether these changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Little penguins displayed increased aggression, huddling and avoidance behaviours in response to visitor presence.

    “another study found that little penguins displayed increased aggression, huddling and avoidance behaviours [14] in response to visitor presence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Sherwen, 2015, Little penguins, Eudyptula minor, show increased avoidance, aggression and vigilance in response to zoo visitors, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All samples were assayed in duplicates.

    “All samples were assayed in duplicates and data are expressed as ng/g dried faeces for final concentrations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Visitor observations were made from the visitor viewing area in the furthest corner of the exhibit area to reduce the effect of researcher presence on the penguins and visitors.

    “These observations were made from the visitor viewing area in the furthest corner of the exhibit area to reduce the effect of researcher presence on the penguins and visitors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The physical barrier not only regulated visitor viewing proximity but also visitor behaviour.

    “This indicates that the physical barrier not only regulated visitor viewing proximity but also visitor behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Close human proximity increases heart rates in nesting Gentoo and Adelie penguins.

    “and increase heart rates in nesting Gentoo [37] and Adelie penguins [38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Nimon, 1995, Heart rate of disturbed penguins, Nature source
    • cites [38] Giese, 1998, Guidelines for people approaching breeding groups of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae), Polar Rec. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    There is limited research investigating the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins.

    “Despite the range of research on wild penguins, there is limited research investigating the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The decreased number of visitors found when visitor viewing distance was increased suggests a potential reduction in visitor dwell times and possibly reduced visitor viewing experience at the penguin enclosure.

    “The decreased number of visitors found when visitor viewing distance was increased suggests a potential reduction in visitor dwell times and possibly reduced visitor viewing experience at the penguin enclosure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A total of 397 faecal samples were collected, and 372 samples (96%) were used to calculate final concentrations after samples with a sample coefficient of variation greater than 20% and sample weights less than 0.01 g were removed.

    “A total of 397 faecal samples were collected during the study. From those samples, 372 samples (96%) were then used to calculate final concentrations for analysis (after samples with a sample coefficient of variation (CV) greater than 20% and sample weights less than 0.01 g were removed)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
55 of 55

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2-day treatment periods are sufficient for penguin behavioural and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite responses to reflect treatment effects.

    “Each treatment was randomly imposed for 2-day periods, two treatments per week with one day break in between (Mon–Tues and Thurs–Fri), with three replicates of each treatment (total of 30 study days) using a fully randomised factorial design.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The physical barrier at 2 m increased viewing distance without otherwise altering the penguin environment or visitor behaviour in ways that affect penguin behaviour.

    “‘Increased viewing distance’—a barrier was set up 2 m from the enclosure to increase the distance between visitors and the enclosure (Figure 2). This allowed unrestricted viewing of the enclosure but was a strong impediment to visitors physically interacting with the glass windows of the pool, pool water and other enclosure features.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The closed exhibit treatment represents an absence of visitor contact and can confirm that visitor presence increases behaviours indicative of fear in penguins.

    “This fifth treatment can be used to confirm that the presence of visitors increased behaviours indicative of fear in penguins.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The visitor behaviours recorded, such as banging on enclosure features, looming over the pool, physical contact with the pool’s water and sudden movement, are potentially threatening to penguins.

    “the physical barrier reduced the frequency of potentially threatening visitor behaviours such as banging on enclosure features, looming over the pool, physical contact with the pool’s water and sudden movement.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Close viewing proximity of visitors increased vigilance, huddling and avoidance of the visitor viewing area and decreased surface swimming in little penguins.

    “More recently, Chiew and colleagues [3] identified that it is the close viewing proximity of visitors that increased vigilance, huddling and avoidance of the visitor viewing area and decreased surface swimming in little penguins.”

    From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Results (§3.2.1) report more vigilance and huddling, fewer penguins near the viewing area, and less surface swimming under closer-viewing conditions. But the Abstract says it is unclear whether these changes resulted from reduced separation itself, visitor behaviours associated with close viewing, or both. The citing sentence presents proximity as the identified cause without that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Penguins are a common zoo-housed species, especially little penguins in Australian zoos.

    “Limited research has been conducted to examine the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins despite penguins being a commonly housed zoo species, especially little penguins (Eudyptula minor) in Australian zoos [3,10,11,12,13,14,15].”

    From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Introduction states that research on visitor effects in zoo-housed penguins is limited. Materials and Methods documents little penguins at Melbourne Zoo, but the paper does not establish that penguins are commonly housed in zoos or that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Close visitor contact may be mitigated by positioning visitors further away from the enclosure boundary or by reducing the perceived close proximity of visitors in little penguins.

    “Close visitor contact may be mitigated by positioning visitors further away from the enclosure boundary or by reducing the perceived close proximity of visitors in little penguins (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that a barrier keeping visitors 2 m from the enclosure reduced fear-related responses in little penguins, supporting the recommendation to position visitors farther away. The paper also suggests penguins perceived nearby visitors as threatening, but it does not test a separate way to reduce perceived proximity without increasing the visitors’ actual distance. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Practical measures (increased separation, positioning visitors below penguins, visually hidden areas, one-way viewing windows) can improve penguin welfare and have no detrimental effect on visitor viewing experience.

    “These practical measures can ultimately result in the improvement in the welfare of penguins as well as have no detrimental effect on visitor viewing experience (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019;Chiew et al. 2020).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019

    The Results and Discussion report that a 2 m barrier reduced fear-related behaviours in little penguins, supporting the welfare benefit of increased separation. The paper did not test positioning visitors below penguins, visually hidden areas, or one-way viewing windows as penguin-welfare measures. Its Discussion also says increased distance may have reduced the visitor viewing experience, rather than establishing no detrimental effect. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Increased separation between visitors and little penguins reduces penguin fear responses towards visitors and has no detrimental effect on visitor experience.

    “As previously mentioned, research in Australian zoos has shown that increased separation between visitors and little penguins reduces penguin fear responses towards visitors and has no detrimental effect on visitor experience (Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019;Chiew, Hemsworth, et al. 2019).”

    From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Chiew, Butler, et al. 2019

    The Conclusions report that increasing visitor viewing distance reduced little-penguin behaviours indicative of fear. But the Discussion says the barrier was associated with fewer visitors and possibly a reduced visitor viewing experience; it does not establish that visitor experience was unaffected. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract omits a visitor behaviour unaffected by viewing distance

    Minor

    The abstract says only loud vocalisations and tactile contact with penguins were exceptions to the reduction in visitor behaviours. The results also report no corresponding effect on looming behaviour when penguins were less than 0.5 m from the looming position.

  • Percentage of faecal samples retained is incorrect

    Minor

    The 372 samples used for analysis are 93.7% of the 397 collected, not 96%.

    Reported 96 · recomputed 93.702771

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Condon, 2003, The effect of visitors on the behavior of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester zoo, Fed. Res. Newsl., 4, 3
  2. Sherwen, 2015, Validation of a faecal glucocorticoid assay in little penguins (Eudyptula minor), J. Zoo Aquar. Res., 3, 134
  3. Stahel, C., and Gales, R. (1987). Little Penguin: Fairy Penguins in Australia, New South Wales University Press.
  4. Wiebkin, A.S. (2011). Conservation Management Priorities for Little Penguin Populations in Gulf St Vincent. Report to Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. SARDI Research Report Series No. 588, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Sherwen, S. L., Coleman, G. J., Fanson, K. V., & Hemsworth, P. H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Zoos Victoria (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Chiew, Samantha J.
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-05-28
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
285
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani9060285
PMC
PMC6617050
OpenAlex
W2947005408
Cited by
61
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
FWCI
11.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP140100373)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
Keywords
little penguin, Eudyptula minor, zoo animal welfare, fecal glucocorticoid metabolites, stress physiology, fear response, tourist arrivals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review